Duke of Sussex court case: key witness statement false

[bluegreygreen]

I looked for another thread on this but didn't see one.

The story is about the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) are bringing against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) for phone hacking. Back in July the claimants were told to reveal any payments that were made to witnesses in exchange for evidence; this seems more serious.

From what I can gather the main witness (Gavin Burrows) in the case was employed by the claimants' team over a couple of years to help research into the phone hacking by different organisations and to track down relevant people. He says he was asked on several occasions if he had worked for the Daily Mail and always denied it, and the first he knew of the current case was when he heard in 2023 that Baroness Lawrence had brought it based on his evidence.

Apparently Burrows wrote a statement at that time (2023) denying the claims and has now written a more detailed statement also denying the claims.

The claimants now don't want to call him as a witness (unsurprisingly) but do want to rely on (some of) his evidence as 'hearsay evidence'.
They also don't want Associated Newspapers to be allowed to call him as a witness.

Telegraph archive link
https://archive.is/YAjNq

I haven't heard before of 'hearsay evidence' being used like this - does anyone know the rules? How can it be tested?

So all of this evidence was there but she didn't see it? And didn't ask to see it?

And what suddenly changed that she did see it?

From my understanding of limitation, she doesn't need to have seen the evidence, she just needs to have been aware if a possible claim.
(As always, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sadie Frost is asked whether she tried to encourage her friend, model Kate Moss, to join the group claim against Associated Newspapers Limited.
"That is 100% untrue," she replies.
"I would never have... we don't have that relationship."
Frost tells the court she wasn't "talking to these other people" about a group claim at the time in 2016.

Interesting 🤔! , where has this tidbit suddenly come from? ( they obviously have some evidence!)

It was mentioned at one of the hearings last year that there is an e.mail from 2016 where SF agrees to approach KM in 2016

It's mentioned in this Telegraph article - it is unclear whether she actually did or not but she said she was happy to do so which shows them recruiting claimants against ANL in 2016

In the email, Dr Harris wrote: “Hi Sadie. These are the actions we agreed at our meeting with Mark T [Thomson] the week before last. There is no action on you for the moment, just on Mark and ourselves. We will crack on with them and then take stock again.”
Under action six on the list, Dr Harris wrote: “SF [Sadie Frost] happy to speak to Kate Moss’s assistant informally about approach re: speaking directly to HO [Hacked Off] about MoS [Mailon Sunday] suspicions. SF will wait until more research is done before taking this action.”
He went on: “Bella [a legal assistant] and Evan will produce a note on the Moss/Burke story that is suspected to have been hacked and sold into Mail on Sunday.”
Frost replied: “Thank you Evan, all ok with this – sadie.”

https://archive.is/kzskx

Edited because I missed a bit of the quote

She did and Jude Law went to court about certain passages in it.

The court is now shown an email from Dr Evan Harris to Sadie Frost, inviting her to a Hacked Off event in September 2017.
Here's what part of that email said...
"I will discuss with Mark [Thomson] meeting about the Daily Mail (Mail on Sunday in fact) hacking issue as we have gathered more evidence since we last spoke, and will need you to speak to Kate [Moss] who was also targeted."
Antony White, representing ANL, suggests Frost wanted to discuss the contents of the April 2016 meeting (see more in 14.20 post) with Harris and her lawyer.
"100% that is not true," she says.
She adds it wouldn't have been her job to get Moss to join the claim, but she would have been interested in any information Harris may have had.
Frost says she would never "in a million years" use her friendship with Kate Moss to bring the model onto a case, after this is suggested by White.
"You've manufactured a whole story that isn't true," says Frost.

'I would never use my friendship with Kate Moss to bring her on a case'
The court is now shown an email from Dr Evan Harris to Sadie Frost, inviting her to a Hacked Off event in September 2017.
Here's what part of that email said...
"I will discuss with Mark [Thomson] meeting about the Daily Mail (Mail on Sunday in fact) hacking issue as we have gathered more evidence since we last spoke, and will need you to speak to Kate [Moss] who was also targeted."
Antony White, representing ANL, suggests Frost wanted to discuss the contents of the April 2016 meeting (see more in 14.20 post) with Harris and her lawyer.
"100% that is not true," she says.
She adds it wouldn't have been her job to get Moss to join the claim, but she would have been interested in any information Harris may have had.
Frost says she would never "in a million years" use her friendship with Kate Moss to bring the model onto a case, after this is suggested by White.
"You've manufactured a whole story that isn't true," says Frost.
.................................................................

So under cross examination SF is trying to deny the whole KM thing

Granny duties over for the day so catching up . Thanks for the updates @bluegreygreen .
Sadie not a very convincing witness !

I can see why the plaintiffs were so slow handing over documents - must have hoped to settle before these e-mails were unearthed

And has obviously been lying about not knowing about this before the cut off!

Sadie Frost tells the court that "all of this is very distressing and overwhelming".
"You're making me feel like I'm part of something that I'm not," she says.
"All of this is horrible but I'm telling you the truth."
Frost says she's being made to feel like she's part of a "plot" or a player in a game.
"You can keep asking me over and over again, I'm telling you it's not true," she adds, referring to Antony White's suggestions she knew enough to bring a case before she launched legal action in October 2022, outside a six-year time limit.
"I'm an innocent person that was hacked and victimised by the Mail," Frost says.

Sky have linked a few of the articles that sf are using, I’m not an expert but I can’t see why anyone would need to use illegal methods to get this information! Anyone else?

Yes - it all sounds like gossip that was "common knowledge" in their circle. She even admitted earlier today that her own PR briefed newspapers about Jude Law.

It's not so much a 😂 emoji I need but a 😲.

What did SF think going to court was going to be like? Did she really think everyone would just take her at her word?

She didn't think she would ever be in court.

You would think she'd never heard of being cross-examined!

I will start another thread and link back to this one

New thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/theroyalfamily/5481748-duke-of-sussex-others-v-anl-thread-2

Happy if you want to fill this one up first

and she doesnt have the shoes for wading in it!

She clearly didn't intend this to go to court if she thinks these are difficult questions. they must have been persuaded there would be a mega payday without a trial.

The court is shown an email sent to Sadie Frost from Dr Evan Harris on New Year's Eve in 2018, asking if she'd provide a reaction to a Byline article claiming the Mail on Sunday was involved in hacking to obtain her private details.
"It makes me very upset and very angry that I had to deal with this on a day I should be with my children," Frost tells the court.
Frost says it was the first time that she'd seen this information in this context, adding "it's very hard to compute some of these things".
"It's not like this is the only thing in my life," she adds.
"I didn't want to deal with that information on my own, it felt very lonely and scary to have that information."
Frost says she was wanting to "try my best to have a lovely time with my family" when she received the email.
"There's nothing dishonest or sinister here," she says.
"There's no plot or plan, it's New Year's Eve for goodness sake."

These emails would’ve been disclosed a while back. Unless I’ve missed somewhere where new disclosure has happened

Antony White, representing ANL, suggests that Sadie Frost is "pretending" she found out about the 2006 voicemails featured in the Byline article.
"That's not true," she tells the court - see our 13.12 post for more details on those voicemails.
"How do you know what I was feeling?" she says in response to White.
"I was completely not expecting it, completely in shock... you're completely off the mark, all of this fabrication is untrue.
"I swear on my life it's not true," she says.
White finishes his questioning.

David Sherborne, representing the seven high-profile claimants in this case, now starts asking his questions to Sadie Frost.
He asks if Frost ever encouraged her friends to pass on any information to journalists.
"No," she replies.
He then asks Frost about details which were published in a Mail on Sunday article titled 'Sadie v Jude'.
She confirms that a series of details published in the piece would likely have been discussed by the pair in a conversation over the phone.